FIRST WORKSHOP ON MITIGATION OF GHG EMISSIONS

FROM THE SPANISH AGROFORESTRY SECTOR

Evaluation of climate change mitigation

policies in agriculture

Mohamed Taher Kahil, Javier Tapia, Fernando Orús, and José Albiac

Department of Agricultural Economics, Agrifood Research and Technology Center of

Aragon (CITA, Government of Aragon)

(March 8-9, 2012)

I. Introduction

Climate change is an important challenge to human society, with

environmental, social and economic dimensions.

In the South of Europe and the Mediterranean basin, there will be

large negative effects from climate variability, with considerable

damages in food production (FAO 2011).

Appropriate climate conditions for cultivation are expected to move

northwards, resulting in more frequent and severe droughts in the

Mediterranean area (IPCC 2011).

A large body of scientific evidence continues to accumulate,

indicating that climatic change is driven by the increasing

atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (IPCC 2007).

Agriculture is a source of GHG emissions such as methane (CH4) and

nitrous oxide (N2O), coming from nitrogen fertilization in cultivated soils,

large animal production facilities, and nitrogen pollution loads in rivers and

water streams.

In Spain, GHG emissions from agriculture are close to 39 million t CO2eq

(11% of emissions) (MARM 2011).

45% of all agricultural GHG emissions are from soil fertilizer management,

making it the largest agricultural source.

32% of emissions are methane from enteric fermentation from livestock.

21% are nitrous oxide and methane from manure handling and storage.

LULUCF activities contribute to the improvement of the Spanish GHG

emission budget. Carbon sequestration amounts to 29 million t CO2eq, or 8

percent of total emissions.

Cultivation activities release 1.7 million t CO2eq (46%).

Manure management release 1.2 million t CO2eq (35%).

Enteric fermentation from livestock release 0.7 million t CO2eq (19%).

Forests in Aragon are an important carbon sink, removing 3.4 million t

CO2eq/year from the atmosphere.

Agriculture in Aragon releases almost 3.6

million t CO2eq of GHG (EACCEL 2011).

GHG agricultural emissions in Aragon

represent 20 percent of the total emissions

of the region, which is above the national

percentage (11%).

The larger agricultural GHG

emissions in Aragon are

located in the Bajo Cinca,

Cinca Medio, Cinco Villas,

La Litera and Monegros

counties, because of the

large acreage of intensive

irrigated crops (corn, rice,

peach), and the large swine

and cattle herd in these

areas.

Analyze the GHG emission sources linked to agricultural

production activities in an intensive agricultural area in

Aragon.

Evaluate the cost-efficiency of several GHG mitigation

measures.

Analyze European agricultural policies at local scale, in order

to evaluate their contribution to climate change mitigation.

II. Objectives

III. Methodology

The study analyzes cultivation and livestock activities in four

counties of the Huesca province: Barbastro, Cinca Medio, Hoya de

Huesca and Monegros. This area includes 138,000 ha of crops

acreage and more than 2 million heads of swine.

The assessment of agricultural GHG emissions follows the

approach of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC

1996).

A linear programming model has been developed to assess the

cost-efficiency of several climate change mitigation measures.

IV. Results

Barbastro Cinca Medio

Hoya de Huesca

Monegros Total study area

N2O direct emission (103 t CO2eq) 16 12 20 45 93

N2O indirect emission (103 t CO2eq) 10 7 12 27 56

N2O manure management (103 t CO2eq) 3 8 5 9 25

CH4 manure management (103 t CO2eq) 63 88 45 246 442

CH4 enteric fermentation (103 t CO2eq) 15 32 17 47 111

Total emissions (103 t CO2eq) 107 147 99 374 727

Crop quasi-rent (106 €) 9 8 5 17 39

Livestock quasi-rent (106 €) 4 6 5 13 28

Total quasi-rent (106 €) 13 14 10 30 67

Emission intensity (€/t CO2eq) 122 95 100 80 91

GHG emissions and quasi-rent from agricultural production activities

1. Assessment of GHG emissions

ScenariosWelfare(106 €)

Quasi-rent(106 €)

Environmental damage (106 €)

Crop acreage (103 ha)

Swine herd(103 heads)

Baseline 49 67 18 134 2,050Emission tax (te=25 €/t CO2eq) 67 49 18 136 1,940Emission limit (10%) 49 65 16 130 1,769Water quality control 48 65 17 100 2,050Fertilization standards 55 71 16 134 2,050Nitrogen tax (tn=0.5 €/kg N) 48 58 17 114 2,050Nitrogen tax (tn=1 €/kg N) 48 51 17 111 2,050Improved feed 46 64 18 134 2,050Swine herd reduction (15%) 48 64 16 134 1,746Water tax (tw=0.02 €/m3) 48 57 18 119 2,050Water tax (tw=0.05 €/m3) 47 43 18 117 2,050Reduction of irrigation water (25%) 43 61 18 118 2,050

Social welfare and quasi-rent under each scenario

ScenariosWater use

(Mm3)

Nitrogen Fertilization

(t N)

Manure surplus

(t N)

Nitrogen leaching

(t N)GHG emissions

(103 t CO2eq)

Baseline 567 19,720 7,500 5,900 727Emission tax (te=25 €/t CO2eq) 569 19,900 7,100 6,000 700Emission limit (10%) 549 19,080 6,700 5,700 655Water quality control 503 13,140 8,800 3,950 677Fertilization standards 567 10,751 2,200 2,700 653Nitrogen tax (tn=0.5 €/kg N) 505 16,890 9,400 4,700 694Nitrogen tax (tn=1 €/kg N) 497 16,300 9,600 4,500 690Improved feed 567 19,720 4,650 5,900 726Swine herd reduction (15%) 558 19,720 6,300 5,900 655Water tax (tw=0.02 €/m3) 506 17,470 7,800 5,200 711Water tax (tw=0.05 €/m3) 492 16,800 8,100 5,050 706Reduction of irrigation water (25%) 437 18,240 7,600 5,200 709

Water and nitrogen use and pollution loads under each scenario

2. Policy scenario

ScenariosGHG abatement

potential (t CO2eq)GHG abatementcost (€/t CO2eq)

Cumulative GHGabatement (t CO2eq)

Fertilization standards 74,000 -54 74,000

Emission limits (10%) 72,000 28 146,000Water quality control 50,000 40 196,000

Swine herd reduction (15%) 72,000 42 268,000Nitrogen tax (tn=0.5 €/kg N) 33,000 273 301,000

Reduction of irrigation water (25%) 18,000 333 319,000Nitrogen tax (tn=1 €/kg N) 37,000 432 356,000Water tax (tw=0.02 €/m3) 16,000 625 372,000Emission tax (te=25 €/t CO2eq) 27,000 667 399,000Water tax (tw=0.05 €/m3) 21,000 1,143 420,000

Improved feed 1,000 3,000 421,000

GHG abatement potential and cost of measures

3. Abatement costs

V. Conclusions Agriculture is an important sector for the implementation of climate change

policies.

Agriculture is a significant source of GHG emissions and the main source

of non-CO2 emissions.

The design of adequate mitigation policies for the agricultural sector is

needed and requires the cooperation of farmers through the right

institutional setting.

The emission intensity in the study area is 91 €/t CO2eq, well above the

average emission intensity of agriculture in Aragon (339 €/t CO2eq).

This type of information is important because the spatial dimension of

emissions contributes to the design and implementation of climate change

mitigation policies adjusted to local conditions.

The analysis of the climate change mitigation measures in agriculture

indicates that there is not a unique preferred measure.

No single instrument can work to mitigate climate change. A combination of

adequate regulatory instruments is highly recommended to achieve climate

stabilization requirements in a cost-efficient way.

Local characteristics and social acceptability have to be considered in the

design of measures, because enforcement requires the support of

stakeholders to be legitimate.

One important result is the need of considering the entire nitrogen cycle

and sources when implementing measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Inappropriate measures could indirectly increase the loss of nitrogen to

water resources through increased leaching and runoff from crop

cultivation and manure surplus.

A comprehensive nutrient management planning is needed to reduce

emission pollution loads.

In the case of Aragon, more attention has to be paid to manure

management in order to find solutions for a better use of this waste.

Manure management is an important aspect for the implementation of

the current environmental regulation. This regulation needs some

revision and adaptation to local conditions.

Results indicate that the use of economic instruments following the

“polluter pays” principle is quite inefficient in the abatement of

agricultural nonpoint pollution.